Justifying Circumstances

Michael Angelo Memoracion

Article The following do not incur any criminal liability:

11. Justifying
circumstances.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, 1. Unlawful aggression.
provided that the following circumstances concur;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights 1. Unlawful aggression.
of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives prevent or repel it
by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity 3. The provocation was given by the person
within the fourth civil degree, provided that attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights 1. Unlawful aggression.

of a stranger, provided
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it

3. That the person defending be not induced by revenge,

resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present; 2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it;

3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means

of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in 1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty
the lawful exercise of a right or office. 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued 1. That an order has been issued by a superior
by a superior for some lawful purpose. 2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry
out the said order is lawful

Justifying circumstances are those wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with law and, hence, he incurs
no criminal and civil liability. The justifying circumstances by subject are as follows:

1. Self-defense
 Justifying Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. (Art. 11, Par. 1) The scope included self-defense not only of life,
but also of rights like those of chastity, property and honor. It has also been applied to the crime of libel. (People v Chua
Chiong, 51 OG 1932)

Its elements are:

a. Unlawful aggression

Aggression is considered unlawful when it is unprovoked or unjustified. There must be real danger to life or personal
safety. An imminent danger of aggression, and not merely imaginary, is sufficient. A slap on the face is actual unlawful
aggression. (Dec., Sup. Ct. of Spain, March 8, 1887)

There is no unlawful aggression exists in a case of an agreed fight. To constitute an agreement to fight, the challenge
must be accepted. (People v. Del Pilar, 44 OG 596) Unlawful aggression may no longer exist if the aggressor ran away
after the attack. (People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366) If the aggression has ceased, the one defending himself has no right
to inflict any further injury to his assailant. (Q11, 1993 Bar)

Mere oral threat to kill, unaccompanied by any unequivocal act clearly indicative of the intent to carry out the threat,
does not amount to unlawful aggression. (People v. Binondo, 97227, Oct. 20, 1992) The mere cocking of an M-14 rifle
by the victim, without aiming the firearm at any particular person is not sufficient to conclude that the life of the person
(Vice-Governor) whom the accused was allegedly protecting, was under actual threat or attack from the victim. There
is no unlawful aggression. (Almeda v. CA, March 13, 1997)

b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

The rule “stand ground when in the right” applies when a person is unlawfully assaulted and if the aggressor is armed
with a weapon. (US v. Domen, 37 Phils. 57) Whether the means employed is reasonable or not it will depend upon the
kind of weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size and other circumstances as well as those of
the person attacked and the time and place of the attack. (People v. Padua, 40 OG 998) The instinct of self-preservation
more often than not is the moving power in man’s action in defending himself. (People v. Artuz, 71 SCRA 116)

c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

A person may be justified in causing injury to another in defense of his property (fencing off the house of the accused)
even if there was no attack against his person. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of circumstance
No. 1 which recognizes the right of an individual to defend his rights, one of which is to own and enjoy his property.
(People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389) Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to
commit the crime inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is considered unlawful
aggression on the property rights. In the instant case, the second element is absent considering that the victim was
unarmed. There is therefore an incomplete self-defense. (Q6, 1996 Bar; Q4, 1990 Bar)

To be entitled to a complete self-defense of chastity, there must be an attempt to rape. (People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil.
174)

When a person is libeled, he may hit back with another libel, which, if adequate, will be justified. Once the aspersion is
cast, its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake it off. (People v. Chua
Hong, 51 OG 1932)

2. Defense of Relative

Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouses, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate or adopted
brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil
 Justifying Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

degree, and in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part
therein. (Art. 11, Par. 2)

Even if two persons agreed to fight, and at the moment when one was about to stab the other, the brother of the latter
arrived and shot him, defense of relative is present as long as there is an honest belief that the relative being defended
was a victim of an unlawful aggression, and the relative defending had no knowledge of the agreement to fight. (US v.
Esmedia 17 Phil. 280)

3. Defense of Stranger.

Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. (Art. 11, Par. 3)

A person who struggled with the husband who was attacking his wife with a bolo for the possession of the bolo and in
the course of the struggle, wounded the husband, was held to have acted in defense of a stranger. (People v. Valdez,
58 Phil. 31)

4. State of Necessity

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another. (Art. 11, Par. 4)

Its requisites are:

a. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists.

b. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.

c. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

This is the only justifying circumstances wherein civil liability may arise but this is borne by the person benefited by his
act. The “state of necessity” exists when there is a clash between two unequal rights, the lesser right giving way to the
greater right.

An accused was acquitted of the crime of slander by deed, when she eloped with another man after all wedding
preparations with the offended party were made, since there was a necessity on the part of the accused to avoid a
loveless marriage with the offended party. (People v. Hernandez, 55 OG 8465)

In a case when in saving the life of the mother, the doctor sacrificed the life of the unborn child, is the attending physician
criminally liable? No, because his acts are justified under this Article (State of necessity). However, in mercy killing
where the doctor deliberately turned off the life support system costing the life of the patient, the doctor is criminally
liable. Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance in our jurisdiction. (Q3, 1990 Bar)

5. Fulfillment of duty

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. (Art. 11, Par. 5) The injury
caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.

The killing by a policeman of an escaping detention prisoner is presumed to be committed in the performance of his
official duties. But shooting a thief who refused to stop inspite of the order of the accused will make him liable as he
exceeded fulfillment of his duty. (People v. Bentres, 49 OG 4919) Also, under the doctrine of self-help, the law justifies
the act of the owner as lawful possessor of a thing in using such force as is reasonably necessary for the protection of
his proprietary or possessory right. (Art. 429, Civil Code)
 Justifying Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

With respect to the wounding of the stranger during the commission of crime of death under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247), the defense of lawful exercise of a right is a justifying circumstance. (Q14, 1991 Bar)

6. Obedience to superior order

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. (Art. 11, Par. 6)

It is required that the order in itself must be lawful; that it is for a lawful purpose; and that the person carrying out the
order must also act within the law. But even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware
of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable. (Nassif v. People, 78 Phil. 67) This is due to a mistake of fact committed in
good faith. Even if the order is illegal, the subordinate may still invoke the exempting circumstances of compulsion of
irresistible force or acting under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.